UNCLASSIFIED

FROM: Scott Mitchell, futuresoldier@ghostrecon.net

TO: Undisclosed Recipients

MEMORANDUM

SUBJ: The “Futuristic Technology” argument (Part 4)

In the fourth part of the ongoing Ghost Recon old vs. new debate, the focus will concentrate on the evolution of high tech weapons and gear throughout the series and discuss the merits of the "Futuristic Technology" argument.

There are certainly other issues that are commonly mentioned in the old vs. new debate, but none as prevalent as the continued inclusion of more futuristic gear in each successive episode. Future Soldier is on pace to significantly out do the technology level witnessed in the other games of the series. From prototype weapons that employ uranium rounds to thermoptic camouflage units that render the wearer virtually invisible, the kit is often considered by some to be more science fiction than high tech.

The "Futuristic Technology" argument essentially states, "The technology proposed in Future Soldier is unrealistic and based merely on imagination or conceptual designs, not current or near future technology, and therefore, should not be promoted like it is."

Before digging into the argument, I think it’s relevant to spotlight the history of technology throughout the Ghost Recon series.

The [Ghost Recon] series was pretty light on the technology. There was the Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW), sensors and the threat/fire indicator. The OICW, in terms of game play, behaved very much like the M-16 with the M203 grenade launcher, except with a faster rate of fire (ROF). Ghost Recon 2 adapted a bit more technology, but not much. It introduced the XM29 OICW with a 20mm Smart Grenade. You could program the grenade to detonate at certain ranges and it actually worked pretty decent (but not something we’ve been able to master in the real world). I don’t remember which weapon had the camera on it, but I vaguely remember the ability to raise your weapon up or shift it left and right – for that whole looking around corners or over cover affect. The Advanced Warfighter chapters, both 1 and 2, are where the technology really began to change, with the addition of unmanned drones, the Cross Com, and the MR-C prototype weapon. Future Soldier has indicated it will have even more sophisticated technology including shoulder mounted rocket launchers, the previously mentioned thermoptic camouflage and load bearing exoskeleton.

There is no denying the military is already using high tech equipment on the battlefield now. From armed drones, to electronic optics/sensors and counter-improvised explosive devices, technology is shaping the tactics our warfighters use today.

Fact: There are UAV drones operating in the Middle East that have more confirmed kills then some (perhaps even most) active duty soldiers do. Obviously the real credit should go to the ones piloting the drones, but the fact remains, the drones are attributed with removing some rather high profile targets.

If people don't recognize the significant dependency on technology on the present day battlefield, then they will almost certainly not recognize the impact it will have on the future battlefield.

There is no denying the military is pursuing (and has been for quite some time) high tech weapons and equipment to provide a higher degree of lethality, interoperability and safety to the warfighter. Programs like Land Warrior (LW) and the Future Force Warrior initiative have been around long before the [Ghost Recon] was released. (The program names may change, but the concept and purpose have generally stayed the same).

Fact: The original LW program dates back to the late 80s early 90s and the Army has been actively pursuing it, or a variant of it, ever since.

The goal of our Army is to continue the transformational process of building a campaign quality expeditionary Army that can support our combatant commanders in the challenges of the 21st Century across the full spectrum of conflict.” -GEN George Casey

So the argument is not whether the military uses or wants high tech equipment. All would agree that is a true statement. The argument is whether the kit used in Future Soldier is even remotely close to present and/or near future real world application and implementation, and if it isn't, then why is marketed to the consumer like it is. I believe this is an accurate representation of the argument.

Let me provide an example of a different and obviously humorous nature that might help capture the argument.

Some scientists study time travel and, not only think it's possible, but that one day we will have time machines. So a game developer comes along and creates a game that involves time travel and markets it as a realistic game based on prototype technology under development. Is that right or wrong?

Will we ever see thermoptic camouflage (or similar technology) on the battlefield? Most would say yes; but will we see it on the battlefield in the next 10 to 15 years? That's where all those who say yes start to waiver. The same could be said for the exoskeleton. We already have this technology but we have run into challenges like power and sustainability that become so problematic, the expectation it will have all the kinks worked out any time soon really makes a 10-15 year time frame seem unrealistic. We’ve already seen deadlines come and go and the projected delivery date seems to keep shifting further to the right.

Is any of this really that big of deal? While I might not think so, some would argue the prototype weapons and gear continues to take the core concepts that made Ghost Recon so engaging further from its origin and transforms it into a more sensational arcade shooter on the level of Gears of War.

I don't know if this expression is common among the civilian population but I have often heard it used in the military and government agencies...

It's called the "I believe" button and basically it is an attitude or mindset that once you press or hit the "I believe" button, you are accepting what is presented without question; you don't necessarily understand or agree with the concept, but for the sake of forward progress, you're willing to ignore the inconsistencies and/or impracticalities and embrace whatever is presented.

As far as Future Soldier and its adoption of futuristic kit is concerned, either you press the "I believe" button or you don't. The choice is clearly an individual one, with no right or wrong answer.

While this concludes the major arguments in the debate, the fifth and final part will summarize the overall discussions and provide some final thoughts on the debate. As always, feel free to discuss in the forum thread located here.

Cheers.

//SIGNED//

Scott Mitchell, futuresoldier@ghostrecon.net